A Bill That Would Free College Athletes to Earn Money From Their Likeness Is Gaining Ground in California

Neither Bernie Sanders, the Democratic presidential contender, nor LeBron James, one of the world’s most famous basketball players, were ever college athletes. But this week both voiced support for a California bill that could alter the amateurism of student-athletes by allowing them to profit from their own names, images, and likenesses.

The bill would bar California institutions, athletics conferences, and the National Collegiate Athletic Association from punishing or posing limitations to athletes who seek compensation for the use of their own name, image, or likeness — such as signing autographs for money or appearing in advertisements. (A likeness could be an illustration of the athlete, for example.)

Such rules have drawn criticism from advocates who believe student-athletes deserve some portion of the vast revenues college sports produce. “This law is a GAME CHANGER,” tweeted James, a California resident, on Thursday. “College athletes can responsibly get paid for what they do and the billions they create.”

On Friday morning, Senator Sanders added on Twitter: “College athletes are workers. Pay them.”

The bill, introduced by Nancy Skinner, a Democratic state senator from Berkeley, has momentum: It passed easily on the state senate floor in May and has faced only one dissenting vote in its three assembly committee hearings. A spokesman from Skinner’s office said the bill should go to a full assembly vote next week. If passed by both chambers by September 13, it will need to be signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom within a month.

The governor’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

Skinner saw student-athletes in California — namely Katelyn Ohashi, a former University of California at Los Angeles gymnast — who boasted a huge following and fame but could make no money from them. “It just seemed patently unfair,” she told The Chronicle in July. Advocates say the bill will also encourage student-athletes to stay in school and complete their degrees with more financial options available.

If signed into law, the bill would go into effect on January 1, 2023, leaving California and the NCAA more than three years to maintain consistent rules.

Allowing student-athletes to seek compensation is a popular proposal among coaches and athletes themselves. A recent poll by two college-basketball writers at CBS Sports surveyed more than 100 Division I basketball coaches and found that 77 percent supported measures allowing athletes to profit from their names, images, and likenesses. “It would be nuts for me to be making the money I make and then turn around and tell you I don’t think the players deserve more,” one coach wrote in an anonymous comment.

California institutions and the NCAA have not voiced similar support. In June, Mark Emmert, president of the NCAA, wrote to lawmakers asking them to table the bill and implied that California colleges could be banned from NCAA championships if it were to pass. The NCAA had set up a working committee to deal with the issue of name, image, and likeness compensation in May and is scheduled to issue a full report in October. Waiting for those results, as Emmert suggested, would effectively kill the bill this year.

Amendments have been added to bar athletes from compensation if it conflicts with team contracts — i.e., athletes signing to compete in Nike shoes if the university has a contract with Under Armour.

The NCAA says allowing athletes to profit would put the notion of amateurism into question — a long-overdue move, student-athlete advocates say. If passed and signed into law, the bill could set off a national reckoning on student-athlete compensation or lead to litigation from the billion-dollar group atop the world of college sports. The latter, said Maureen Weston, a professor of law at Pepperdine University, could put into question the NCAA’s enforcement power in dealing with state law.

For California’s member institutions, the law would pose headaches for athletics departments and administrations not wanting to run amok of NCAA bylaws. A letter from the University of California system posited that such a law could lead to “budget cuts and the likely elimination of non-revenue sports.”

That California universities would stand against a measure meant to benefit their own students is indicative of the power dynamic between the NCAA and its member institutions. Marc Edelman, a professor of law at Bernard M. Baruch College, part of the City University of New York, told The Chronicle in June, “Every one of these schools operate within a prisoner’s dilemma,” in which both sides, acting in their own interests, fail to produce the optimal outcome.

Will Jarvis is an editorial intern at The Chronicle. Follow him on Twitter @willyfrederick, or email him at will.jarvis@chronicle.com.